So what makes life interesting? The answer is ludicrously simple: emotions. Mainly the positive ones. But not exclusively, because people maiinly want to be entertained by emotion to lead an interesting life, and just on top of that want a good life (and both interests sometimes even conflict). This desire for emotions is behind much of people’s activity to make their own life interesting:

  • starting a romantic relationship
  • starting a romantic relationship with somebody else
  • “involuntarily” creating relationship drama in ones life, with mixed joy and sadness
  • watching movies
  • reading novels; this allows to experience deep emotions (deeper and more faceted than in movies), without the danger and effort of undergoing these experiences in real life
  • extreme sports
  • meditation, prayer, church going: for many, this is just for the sake of the emotions experienced therein
  • listening to and creating music
  • travelling, which triggers emotions of surprise and curiosity etc.
  • scientific research, which feeds curiosity
  • dealing with and marveling at beautiful objects, plants, animals and people
  • engaging in flirting and courting, including dancing etc.
  • engaging in erotic and sexual activity
  • behavior and accomplishments that feed ones pride and self-esteem

The new (at least, new for me) aspect in the above rationale is: people do not do something, in the first instance, because they are motivated by emotion; instead, they are motivated by the desire to experience emotion. That is a hypothesis that has to be checked by psychological experiments of course, but let’s go a step further and for the rest of this article just assume that it is proven correct already …

From a Christian perspective, one can even argue that emotions have been created by God in order to make life interesting for us. At least we can say, God did not create human beings in a way that enables them to easily undergo emotional boredness for any non-trivial amount of time; such an experience is always a time of suffering for a human being.

To master life, everybody has to develop tools and techniques to trigger emotions which let one experience “interestingness of life”. Because, in many cases such emotions are not triggered by ones current circumstances of life on their own. In a modern world, people’s circumstances of life are mostly just plain boring, esp. for poor and otherwise restricted people.

A women lives to be a mother: you can detect that from what they care about and deal with (people, people, people …) and how they like being a mother. I respect that. It’s a very important contribution as humanity would die out without mothers; men and all of humanity is only “through the women” (which is also a Bible quote, you know).

However, here is a quite bold statement: for the next several hundred years, the foremost role of women should not be motherhood. Because, there are enough people in the world; so many that actively pursuing a motherhood role is not necessary to keep the world population even above a healthy level of 200 million to 2 billion people.

In addition, I would add that it is disrespectful and selfish to produce new people while the world is not fixed yet to prevent the new people from unnecessarily suffering in this world. New children would be born “for the joy of parenthood” only now, while it would be better to wait until the world is fixed. As it is pure chance what particular child will come out when creating one, people can create the very same people, in a statistical sense, when the world is fixed some hundred years in the future. And until then, just keep society large enough to ensure that it will live on.

This logic is (hopefully …) also acceptible for God; if he indeed wants many people to be created for “populating heaven”. It then just takes a bit longer, but the people will be of “better quality”: a fixed world produced more joyyful, less broken people.

So women need to re-define themselves, take over other tasks! This is a very difficult thing to do, given how focused most women currently are to become mothers.

What exactly was God’s purpose with the Babylonian confusion of tongues? Trying to capture it abstractly, it seems to be this: to prohibit overly synergistic / overly efficient collaboration of people in the future. Because doing this, sinful men would do something against God’s will (like building that central city with its tower instead of filling the Earth) and that something would also harm themselves (actually, dictator Nimrod ruled that city Babylon).

If we put it that generally, the effects are still there today. We have overcome the language problems partially after several thousands of years now, but the deeper problems are still there: people are not able to communicate good enough and to collaborate good enough so that something truly great (or truly terrible, if people had their will) could emerge.

Even the problem of language confusion is just a symptom of a deeper problem: if people had been determined enough, they simply could have set up a research and learning system that is about studying languages, and then could have defined a standard language that everybody would have to learn. But that did not happen, because people’s will to communicate and collaborate was broken. Thanks God, one has to say. But otherwise, if there would be “good” people, they also would lack the ability to communicate and collaborate perfectly now, which renders them unable to do something truly great and powerfully good for this world …

Perhaps you already read about my “power community” vision. One way to grasp it is: it’s avout reversing these communication and collaboration friction loss problems, but on a small scale (like 7-10 people). On a global scale, it would only do harm to reverse these problems, and God will probably keep us from doing that …

Yesterday, I discussed with a friend how God does help this world.
The alternatives were these:

  1. That God helps “only” from eternal condemnation. With respect to our life in this world this would only be a theoretical concept, as condemnation happens after this life. Christian people would just know that people are infinitely bad, which would keep them from getting disappointed again by others or themselves. But there would be no way to change this in this world.
  2. God would, at times, let good things happen in the outside world. Or they might happen because God kept the outside world from deteriorationg completely, so that a remains of glory is still in it. In any case, people should be grateful if this happens, and not think that it is their “right” to experience such good and rightful events. Because after all, we live in a fallen world.
  3. God would, probably in addition to the prior alternative, help people to deal with their defects of personality, by helping them overcome, manage or work around these on a case-by-case basis. This would keep people from thinking that they “finally learned something”, and thus keep them from pride. They would know that they cannot handle their defects in the future without the immediate help of God. This constant dependency would be a positive thing, though: experiencing God’s help frequently would be something that keeps the relationship to God warm and active.
  4. Like before, but God would mainly try to educate his children to permanently overcome their character defects, by acquiring better character. This would be in parallel to how parents educate their children and teach them new qualifications, and are happy when they get it and finally can live on their own. As children of great character, these would however also be thankful and not proud, knowing that they did not teach themselves, and could never have done so (because as evildoers, they did not want to!).

We agreed that alternative 2 is true, and discussed whether the rest is rather like 3 or 4. The difference of opinion probably is rooted in different images of humanity. If you think that you will always need God’s supernatural power to do good, you think that some supernatural part went missing in the Fall, rendering people unable to even learn  to be good again. (The supernatural part might also be thought as a male sex-linked genetic disease, as it was not present in Jesus who was born from Mary and the Holy Spirit, so not including a man …) If you, however, think that original sin is rather something like the fall of our collective mind, by learning from bad example, to a state where self-education towards the good is impossible for us humans: then you can agree with alternative 4 and think that God can teach us to be good (in principle, but not coming to an end in our lifetime).

If you agree with alternative 4, you might think that “spirit” is another word for “mind” or “brain program”, and that “receiving the Holy Spirit” is a term for the influence of God’s mind (which does not depend in matter implementation in a brain) on our mind. Which not necessarily involves changing our brain content (that would be a miracle in the physical world each time). Because, there might already be an interface prepared for the Holy Spirit, where it can connect to and add “external mind power” (motivation, love etc.) to our brain; like pushing it to an altered, higher state, not unlike the way soem drugs do it. (Note that, then, there might also be an interface for demons …).

I found an interesting quote. I put it here, translated from German by myself:

So, capitalism never works out, because it constantly produces more than can be bought. That it can be maintained that long and produces a relative wealth for a small part of the human population is just because of perusing global differences and because of employing robbery and fraud. But even this wealth has its price and can only be seen as a relative wealth; because, one has to take into account the physical and mental degeneration and dissatisfaction of the wealthy citizens, in contrast to the often happy people of these plundered countries, even though they are often called “poor people”. [source]

Now what does this mean, it always produces more than people can buy? It works like this: the capitalists are those who, for any reason whatsoever, were able to accumulate some money. Now if they would use up that money for consumption, we would not have any problem, but: they do not want to lose that money again, they want it to make more money instead, to live from the interests (they are capitalists after all). So they invest it into companies (or states, which get it from companies by taxes), as this is the only way to “make gain”. Now if companies would spend all that money on their employees which again would spend it all on consumption, there would be no problem again. But the largest part of the money is spent for production technology, which then is used to produce goods for which there are no buyers. Because the employees did not get much …
In short: capitalism dies from deflation in the consumer class. Because too much money went into creating production facilties as a way to make more gain, neglecting that by cutting employee wages, they will (on large scale) lack the ability to consume. Making the production facilities run idle.

And shorter: capitalism dies because investing in production facilities is a bubble.

Addition: if we define consumption as an “irrevocable assignment of money to material goods”, then creating production facilities is of course production, too. But, if people cannot afford the goods, it is a form of consumption that does not increase the wealth in society, a useless assignement of money. Races around the moon would be just as useless.

Of course one could also argue that, if there is more supply than demand, then the prices will fall. Which would solve the problem if the capitalists would do that by waiving a part of their gain; but they always try to do it first by cutting employee wages. Which then reinforces the whole problem (on society scale).

After all, this leads to the following insight: an economy is healthy only the price sum of all consumer products produced and the sum of all employee wages is the same! Which is an objetive indicator for how much work time is worth: as much as needed to buy everything that is produced. The problem is, it seems that this condition will leave no gain at all to be made by capital investment! If somebody saved up capital, he or she might invest it as a tool (“lever”: allows to do move bigger things), but can not expect to make gain with the capital, but by using his / her own work time. The hourly wages of course can differ, and can make up the lack of capital interest (at least partially).

So as a solution, we would need this (and only this) element of a controlled economy: nobody is allowed to increase production capabilities (like founding another company, or optimizing current capabilities) if the wage sum of the whole society does not allow the society members to buy all the expected new products. This will make capitalists increase the wages of their employees to get allowed to found new enterprises. And that way, the employees get a fair share of the capitalists’ income (where fair means, enough to buy what gets produced).

I wonder if “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen 1:28) is meant as an command to individual persons or to humankind as a whole. I would rather say, to humankind as a whole, because God adds, in typical Judaic parallelism, the same content verbalized as: “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

So it seems the command is not for everybody to have children, but for humankind to fill the Earth. And there are plenty of tasks to do that are not about having children oneself, and that contribute to humankind filling and ruling (in a positive way) the Earth: caring for orphans, caring for children medically (so that they do not die), caring for adults medically and mentally (so that they can have and educate healthy children) etc..

How about this: to counter conditions like in Iraq and Afghanistan, one should re-invent the historic practice of razing (tearing down) whole cities, and extend this if necessary also to whole countries, but all in humanitarian acceptable manner. For example, one could tear down Bagdad, and distribute the 5 million people to all the other countries of the world.

And how about this (even better): War (as in, all violent conflicts) is always a conflict of interest, and in nearly all cases there are people who actively want to fight that war, and those who do not but are harmed by the war. Those who are harmed would want to emigrate to asylum; and by providing an easily accessible option for such permanent asylum, one solves the problem of war. Because what’s left are people who want to be in the war, and may they do so, as they do not want any help. So what’s needed is a state with the sole task to provide permanent asylum, in the sense of finding a new home. That state would actively search for new people to take in, and extract them from their current conflict zones by all means. The people would then be educated to take part in their new state, including learning English as their new language, learning a new profession etc.. That new state would be a resource-oriented economy, kind of a planned economy in the digital age, also including digitized peer-observation to counter corruption. What’s still needed is a place for that state; any place would do, including a part of the Sahara, a specially licenced ground from another state (“temporary state” on foreign ground) etc..

A basic insight has to be this: war is the most explicit way to destroy resources (wealth). (Entertainment is another way, but we discuss war here.) Because in war, both parties try to harm (destroy) each other, and protect themselves from this artificial (man made, not nature made) harm produced by the other party. The most idiotic war of course is the war for economc resources: it is destroying resources to gain resources.